MC 401 Bragg Test 2 Question and
answers correctly solved 2025/2026
New York Times v Sullivan - correct answer ✔Year: 1964 Vote: 9-0 Topic: Libel, Actual Malice, Public
Officials Case: NYT ran an editorial ad that was placed by a coalition of civil rights leaders. In the ad were
small, factual errors. Sullivan sought suit for $500,000 in damages. Supreme court overruled the trial
court saying, Sullivan needed to prove actual malice. First time actual malice standard applied to public
officials.
Schenck v United States - correct answer ✔Year: 1919 Vote: 9-0 Topic: Sedition Case: Schenck
published 15,000 leaflets protesting US involvement in WWI urging young men to resist the draft.
Schenck and others arrested for violating the Espionage Act. Supreme Court appealed saying it violated
his 1st amendment rights.
Abrams v United States - correct answer ✔Year: 1919 Vote: 7-2 Topic: Bad Tendency Test Case:
Defendants were convicted because they distributed leaflets to workers inciting resistance to the war
effort and trying to slow/stop the production of essential war materials. 20 yrs in prison.
Gitlow v New York - correct answer ✔Year: 1925 Vote: 7-2 Topic: Clear and present danger Case:
Gitlow printed a document called "The Left Wing Manifesto" -- violent overthrow of the US gov't. He
was prosecuted under NY state law. Gitlow argued the 14th amendment protected him. Court applied
bad tendency test. Holmes and Brandeis dissented to the "clear and present danger"
Dennis v United States - correct answer ✔Year: 1951 Vote: 7-2 Topic: The Smith Act of 1940 Case:
Made it a crime to advocate violent overthrow of the government. Used to convict communist party
leaders in U.S. Supreme court rejected defendant's argument saying Smith Act violated the 1st
amendment.
Brandenburg v Ohio - correct answer ✔Year: 1969 Topic: Clear and Present Danger Test Case: Per
Curiam. KKK leaders convicted for violating Ohio law. Making it illegal to engage in "mere advocacy."
Supreme court reversed conviction saying the law must distinguish between abstract advocacy of ideas
and the incitement of unlawful conduct.
, Clear and Present Danger Test - correct answer ✔1. Did speaker intend to incite lawless action?
2. Is more imminent danger of lawless action?
3. Is the advocated action lawless?
4. Is it likely action will be carried out?
Near v Minnesota - correct answer ✔Year: 1931 Vote: 5-4 Topic: Prior Restraint Doctrine Case: Near
published the Saturday Press attacking corruption in city gov't using violent language and defamed some
of towns leading officials. Targeting Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Labor Unions. Near convicted under Public
Nuisance law. Supreme Court rule the nuisance statute violed 1st amendment.
Nebraska Press Association v Stuart - correct answer ✔Year: 1976 Vote: 9-4 Case: With reporters from
all over the nation due to a local murder local Judge Stuart restricted the publication or broadcast of a
wide range of information he thought would be prejudicial to the defendant during the trial. Supreme
Court ruled this prior restraint unconstitutional. Judge Stuart did not meet the prior restraint burden.
First Amendment Scrutiny - correct answer ✔1. Imminent and Serious Danger
2. There are no alternatives (ie: change venue)
3. Stopping the speech with stop the danger
4. Order cannot be vague or overbroad
New York Times v U.S. - correct answer ✔Year: 1971 Vote: 6-3 Topic: War Time Access, FOIA Case:
Pentagon Papers, Per Curiam Cho decision listed with nine different concurring and dissenting opinions.
Publications like NYT began publishing stolen, classified information. Gov't contended the information
jeopardized national security. NYT refused to stop publication. Supreme court asserted that the gov't
failed to meet its heavy burden of justifying prior restraint. Gov't needed to do a better job of explaining
how the papers put the country in danger.
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire - correct answer ✔Year: 1942 Vote: 9-0 Topic: Fighting Words Doctrine
Case: Chaplinsky (a Jehovah's Witness) yelled "you are a ********ed racketeer" and "a damned fascist"
answers correctly solved 2025/2026
New York Times v Sullivan - correct answer ✔Year: 1964 Vote: 9-0 Topic: Libel, Actual Malice, Public
Officials Case: NYT ran an editorial ad that was placed by a coalition of civil rights leaders. In the ad were
small, factual errors. Sullivan sought suit for $500,000 in damages. Supreme court overruled the trial
court saying, Sullivan needed to prove actual malice. First time actual malice standard applied to public
officials.
Schenck v United States - correct answer ✔Year: 1919 Vote: 9-0 Topic: Sedition Case: Schenck
published 15,000 leaflets protesting US involvement in WWI urging young men to resist the draft.
Schenck and others arrested for violating the Espionage Act. Supreme Court appealed saying it violated
his 1st amendment rights.
Abrams v United States - correct answer ✔Year: 1919 Vote: 7-2 Topic: Bad Tendency Test Case:
Defendants were convicted because they distributed leaflets to workers inciting resistance to the war
effort and trying to slow/stop the production of essential war materials. 20 yrs in prison.
Gitlow v New York - correct answer ✔Year: 1925 Vote: 7-2 Topic: Clear and present danger Case:
Gitlow printed a document called "The Left Wing Manifesto" -- violent overthrow of the US gov't. He
was prosecuted under NY state law. Gitlow argued the 14th amendment protected him. Court applied
bad tendency test. Holmes and Brandeis dissented to the "clear and present danger"
Dennis v United States - correct answer ✔Year: 1951 Vote: 7-2 Topic: The Smith Act of 1940 Case:
Made it a crime to advocate violent overthrow of the government. Used to convict communist party
leaders in U.S. Supreme court rejected defendant's argument saying Smith Act violated the 1st
amendment.
Brandenburg v Ohio - correct answer ✔Year: 1969 Topic: Clear and Present Danger Test Case: Per
Curiam. KKK leaders convicted for violating Ohio law. Making it illegal to engage in "mere advocacy."
Supreme court reversed conviction saying the law must distinguish between abstract advocacy of ideas
and the incitement of unlawful conduct.
, Clear and Present Danger Test - correct answer ✔1. Did speaker intend to incite lawless action?
2. Is more imminent danger of lawless action?
3. Is the advocated action lawless?
4. Is it likely action will be carried out?
Near v Minnesota - correct answer ✔Year: 1931 Vote: 5-4 Topic: Prior Restraint Doctrine Case: Near
published the Saturday Press attacking corruption in city gov't using violent language and defamed some
of towns leading officials. Targeting Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Labor Unions. Near convicted under Public
Nuisance law. Supreme Court rule the nuisance statute violed 1st amendment.
Nebraska Press Association v Stuart - correct answer ✔Year: 1976 Vote: 9-4 Case: With reporters from
all over the nation due to a local murder local Judge Stuart restricted the publication or broadcast of a
wide range of information he thought would be prejudicial to the defendant during the trial. Supreme
Court ruled this prior restraint unconstitutional. Judge Stuart did not meet the prior restraint burden.
First Amendment Scrutiny - correct answer ✔1. Imminent and Serious Danger
2. There are no alternatives (ie: change venue)
3. Stopping the speech with stop the danger
4. Order cannot be vague or overbroad
New York Times v U.S. - correct answer ✔Year: 1971 Vote: 6-3 Topic: War Time Access, FOIA Case:
Pentagon Papers, Per Curiam Cho decision listed with nine different concurring and dissenting opinions.
Publications like NYT began publishing stolen, classified information. Gov't contended the information
jeopardized national security. NYT refused to stop publication. Supreme court asserted that the gov't
failed to meet its heavy burden of justifying prior restraint. Gov't needed to do a better job of explaining
how the papers put the country in danger.
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire - correct answer ✔Year: 1942 Vote: 9-0 Topic: Fighting Words Doctrine
Case: Chaplinsky (a Jehovah's Witness) yelled "you are a ********ed racketeer" and "a damned fascist"
